Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

global warming models proven "huge"-ly wrong

Page 4 of 5 [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

11 Aug 2011, 2:00 am

The 20th century had an unusually stable climate compared to centuries prior. It would be unreasonable to assume it should continue.

The whole theory hasn't convinced me we are or are not responsible for atmospheric warming. We're responsible for a lot of sprawl which increases heat around weather stations. We're responsible for a lot of deforestation, REAL pollution, garbage, and radiological, biological, and chemical contaminates. These are all legitimate environmental concerns, but the main push for global warming, to me, stems from people wanting to push global taxes and various credit trading programs (Al Gore et al would personally profit greatly from).

The now infamous hockey stick graph used in Gore's propaganda is due to two bristle cone pine tree core samples. Yes, the sample was so small if you take two out there is no hockey stick.

Not to mention the whole theory hinges on the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. Now, the greenhouse effect is real, but CO2 is an extremely WEAK greenhouse gas. It isn't surprising there is a correlation, but rising CO2 trails global warming by hundreds of years due to warming seas (which then release vast quantities of CO2). No doubt we are responsible for CO2 rising now, but the correlation doesn't suggest that increased CO2 causes global warming, only the opposite.

So instead of running around like headless chickens about what's likely a stupid phobia, enslaving ourselves in the process, why not focus our energies on valid environmental concerns like all these f-ing nuclear plants which are all one power cut away from being a Fukushima x10?



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

11 Aug 2011, 2:27 am

anarkhos wrote:
why not focus our energies on valid environmental concerns like all these f-ing nuclear plants which are all one power cut away from being a Fukushima x10?

To be fair, Fukushima wasn't the result of a simple power cut, and *all* reactors are designed with being able to handle a simple power cut in mind.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

14 Aug 2011, 3:45 am

We have the religious right to thank for this concept of global warming denial . Right wingers like Pat Robertson love to call environmentalists tree worshiping pagans and he assures his audience that if anything we are headed for an ice age so we actually need to release even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Of course since Pat's audience believes that he is a man of God the gladly eat up all of his propaganda.



straightfairy
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 115
Location: Midlands, UK

14 Aug 2011, 11:16 am

No, we have facts to thank for global warming denial.
The Earth has effectively been cooling since 1998.
Give it a few years (it's started already) and they will all call it Climate Change instead of Global Warming, because it's not warming anymore...

One Question that the Global Warming protagonists have never been able to answer (with any kind of proof) is this.
For any claimed degree of warming, how much of that is due to humans.
(e.g. for a claimed increase of say 2C per 100 years, how much of that 2C is down to us, rather than nature?)


_________________
Away with the fairies.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Aug 2011, 1:16 pm

straightfairy wrote:
No, we have facts to thank for global warming denial.
The Earth has effectively been cooling since 1998.
Give it a few years (it's started already) and they will all call it Climate Change instead of Global Warming, because it's not warming anymore...

One Question that the Global Warming protagonists have never been able to answer (with any kind of proof) is this.
For any claimed degree of warming, how much of that is due to humans.
(e.g. for a claimed increase of say 2C per 100 years, how much of that 2C is down to us, rather than nature?)


If the world becomes a snowball a hundred years from now, the viros will still blame the capitalists.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Aug 2011, 6:15 pm

ruveyn wrote:
straightfairy wrote:
No, we have facts to thank for global warming denial.
The Earth has effectively been cooling since 1998.
Give it a few years (it's started already) and they will all call it Climate Change instead of Global Warming, because it's not warming anymore...

One Question that the Global Warming protagonists have never been able to answer (with any kind of proof) is this.
For any claimed degree of warming, how much of that is due to humans.
(e.g. for a claimed increase of say 2C per 100 years, how much of that 2C is down to us, rather than nature?)


If the world becomes a snowball a hundred years from now, the viros will still blame the capitalists.

ruveyn


I would argue that this is all about power, the left sees this as another crisis they can exploit to gain more power.



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

14 Aug 2011, 9:15 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
oldmantime wrote:
second off, if these people can't even correctly predict the weather that has happened, which they haven't, they've been totally dead wrong for the past decade or so, then how is it that they can predict the climate patterns many many years from now?

*sigh*
I get so fricking tired of this one. I don't know if I should even bother explaining since I'm not sure you have the mental capacity to understand.

One does not have to accurately predict what the weather will be on any given day to predict a long term climate trend. Climate is an example of a chaotic attractor. While the weather at any given time and location fluctuates chaotically, fluctuations are statistically bounded by the attractor. In other words, the mean state which varies as a long-term trend is far more predicable than short term fluctuations. This is because short term weather fluctuations are largely a matter of dynamical processes that conserve energy. Meanwhile, long term fluctuations are a function of the overall energy budget which is mostly due to radiative processes which DO NOT conserve energy. In more simple terms if "energy in" > "energy out" you have warming, and if it's the other way you have cooling. How the energy is stirred around within the atmosphere is much less relevant.

Here's a more concrete example. Say you wrote a computer model to simulate a boiling pan of water. The model doesn't have to accurately predict the time and location of each individual vapor bubble that forms in the pan or each individual turbulent motion of the water to predict that X amount of water will boil off in a given amount of time. That's because the X amount of water that boils off is governed by the net energy balance of the system. The positions and timings of individual vapor bubbles and chaotic convective currents do not effect the net energy balance of the system to any large degree.
B-b-b-but the planet has always gone through warming and cooling cycles, obviously thousands of scientists who have spent years studying it would overlook such simple factors and fail to take them into account! Never mind that we might be adding insult to injury when it comes to these cycles! :roll:


Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if the scientists deliberately didn't take the fact the planet has gone through warming and cooling cycles.

They do take that in account. Don't forget that geological periods take account of very long time and that overall the current climate change ir comparatively very fast. More so, some major extinction events can be atributed, at least in part, to major and fast climate changes. There is no guarantee that our specie will survive this one, civilization is much more fragile to outside forces that we generally believe... Civilization really is only a few days away from starvation.


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

14 Aug 2011, 9:21 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
straightfairy wrote:
No, we have facts to thank for global warming denial.
The Earth has effectively been cooling since 1998.
Give it a few years (it's started already) and they will all call it Climate Change instead of Global Warming, because it's not warming anymore...

One Question that the Global Warming protagonists have never been able to answer (with any kind of proof) is this.
For any claimed degree of warming, how much of that is due to humans.
(e.g. for a claimed increase of say 2C per 100 years, how much of that 2C is down to us, rather than nature?)


If the world becomes a snowball a hundred years from now, the viros will still blame the capitalists.

ruveyn


I would argue that this is all about power, the left sees this as another crisis they can exploit to gain more power.


You don't know scientists very well do you?


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


oldmantime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 522

14 Aug 2011, 10:09 pm

the thing about scientists is that they're all paid by someone and that someone usually has some financial interest at stake.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Aug 2011, 12:13 am

Tollorin wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
straightfairy wrote:
No, we have facts to thank for global warming denial.
The Earth has effectively been cooling since 1998.
Give it a few years (it's started already) and they will all call it Climate Change instead of Global Warming, because it's not warming anymore...

One Question that the Global Warming protagonists have never been able to answer (with any kind of proof) is this.
For any claimed degree of warming, how much of that is due to humans.
(e.g. for a claimed increase of say 2C per 100 years, how much of that 2C is down to us, rather than nature?)


If the world becomes a snowball a hundred years from now, the viros will still blame the capitalists.

ruveyn


I would argue that this is all about power, the left sees this as another crisis they can exploit to gain more power.


You don't know scientists very well do you?


I actually do know scientists rather well, they are people just like anyone else, and they have failings just like anyone else.



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

16 Aug 2011, 4:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
straightfairy wrote:
No, we have facts to thank for global warming denial.
The Earth has effectively been cooling since 1998.
Give it a few years (it's started already) and they will all call it Climate Change instead of Global Warming, because it's not warming anymore...

One Question that the Global Warming protagonists have never been able to answer (with any kind of proof) is this.
For any claimed degree of warming, how much of that is due to humans.
(e.g. for a claimed increase of say 2C per 100 years, how much of that 2C is down to us, rather than nature?)


If the world becomes a snowball a hundred years from now, the viros will still blame the capitalists.

ruveyn


I would argue that this is all about power, the left sees this as another crisis they can exploit to gain more power.


You don't know scientists very well do you?


I actually do know scientists rather well, they are people just like anyone else, and they have failings just like anyone else.

They may, but scientists seeking powers seek it in academia, not in politics. There are generally passionate peoples, and politics outside of academia would drive them away of science, which is what they like. More so, a lot of environmental activists think that such questions should be apolitical.

The true conspiracy is from the denialists, financed by corporate powers afraid of losing power from the necessary actions to take for protecting the environment and the humanity. The oil and coal companies are simply acting the same way tobacco companies had acted when they felt treatened by science showing tobacco toxixity. More so, there is the paranioa and anti-intellectualism from some right wings peoples that can't swallow that a movement born in the left political spectrum (Sometime backed by science, though not always, like for it's more radical elements) may have some pretty good points.


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

16 Aug 2011, 5:14 pm

Tollorin wrote:
The true conspiracy is from the denialists,

As long as the rhetoric is centered around 'conspiracy' and 'denialists', I'm going to assume that you're wrong, and that the only reason you're going on about that sort of thing is that you have no better argument because you're wrong.

Quote:
More so, there is the paranioa and anti-intellectualism from some right wings peoples that can't swallow that a movement born in the left political spectrum (Sometime backed by science, though not always, like for it's more radical elements) may have some pretty good points.

If you guys have good points, why not make those points rather than rant about oil companies and deniers and so forth?


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Aug 2011, 6:50 pm

Tollorin wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
straightfairy wrote:
No, we have facts to thank for global warming denial.
The Earth has effectively been cooling since 1998.
Give it a few years (it's started already) and they will all call it Climate Change instead of Global Warming, because it's not warming anymore...

One Question that the Global Warming protagonists have never been able to answer (with any kind of proof) is this.
For any claimed degree of warming, how much of that is due to humans.
(e.g. for a claimed increase of say 2C per 100 years, how much of that 2C is down to us, rather than nature?)


If the world becomes a snowball a hundred years from now, the viros will still blame the capitalists.

ruveyn


I would argue that this is all about power, the left sees this as another crisis they can exploit to gain more power.


You don't know scientists very well do you?


I actually do know scientists rather well, they are people just like anyone else, and they have failings just like anyone else.

They may, but scientists seeking powers seek it in academia, not in politics. There are generally passionate peoples, and politics outside of academia would drive them away of science, which is what they like. More so, a lot of environmental activists think that such questions should be apolitical.

The true conspiracy is from the denialists, financed by corporate powers afraid of losing power from the necessary actions to take for protecting the environment and the humanity. The oil and coal companies are simply acting the same way tobacco companies had acted when they felt treatened by science showing tobacco toxixity. More so, there is the paranioa and anti-intellectualism from some right wings peoples that can't swallow that a movement born in the left political spectrum (Sometime backed by science, though not always, like for it's more radical elements) may have some pretty good points.


If we have a CO^2 problem, here is a wonderful solution, get factories to plant trees on their front lawn.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

18 Aug 2011, 12:38 pm

Everyone with a real understanding of the danger of global warming should take action. Turn off your computers, Now.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Aug 2011, 1:33 am

Inventor wrote:
Everyone with a real understanding of the danger of global warming should take action. Turn off your computers, Now.


And for more hysteria:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... ilisations

Guess all the competitent people left NASA when the shuttles were retired.



Nil_Nil
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 196

19 Aug 2011, 4:24 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Inventor wrote:
Everyone with a real understanding of the danger of global warming should take action. Turn off your computers, Now.


And for more hysteria:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... ilisations

Guess all the competitent people left NASA when the shuttles were retired.


Come on, I feel much safer knowing that taxpayer dollars that could fund federal salaries, medical coverage, retirement, social services, and high falootin' campaign dinners is going to valuable research that could benefit all mankind. :lol: I think the Govt. misread the contract and ended up giving money to a "Drink Tank" not a "Think Tank".